Which class for the player character makes more sense to you plotwise? (spoiler warning)

Michail

I have a thing with choosing my character class in rpg's. It has to make sense (to me) and not be redundant. For Baldur's Gate, I always felt that i should play a mage, because the player character was raised by a wizard, or maybe a cleric because he was raised in a monastery/library full of monks and scholars. Maybe even a sorcerer. I've almost always played as a pure mage, and it payed off in BGII, where the only pure mage available is edwin (this will change if Neera appears there).

Another player i know of played a fighter/mage, so as to combine the player characters upbringing and the instincts of the god of death. I kind of like this because he/she would be able to use Sarevok's two handed sword in BGII.

A thief/mage would make sense as well, from the god of murder point of view, but it would be useless with Immoen in the party, especially in BGII.

What do you think?

ajwz

I think the character in the book was a fighter.

Then again, the book wasn't very good.

AlexDeLarge

You could make an argument for any fighter/mage/cleric or monk that would make good sense. Thief, not as much; Druid definitely not. Neither Paladin nor Ranger imo.

RedWizard

Any. There are monks, guards, mages and clerics in candlekeep, enough to train any class but a druid and a barbarian.
And for most other classes, you can use charname's heritage so it makes sense, like Sorcerer and Blackguard. I think the worst are druid and barbarian, considering he lived his entire life in closed walls, those are the only ones that don't make any sense to me.
Yeah, also add ranger to the list.

Michail

@ajwz
Hm... a fighter makes more sense in a book, because it is easier to write action scenes that most people will like (Salvatore had a hard time writing books about a cleric).

dac0152

I always thought Bard would be a pretty good choice. He/She's lead a relatively peaceful life in a giant library which would explain all of the Lore and interest in stories of glory. He/She would learn bits of magic from Gorion, and with Imoen around, thieving skills would be easy to come by.

As far as the Bhaal aspect, an interest in heroes, Gods, villains and glory would push him/her to wanting to discover his/her divine heritage, either to become a legend by subverting it, or to become a God by embracing it, either way becoming part of lore him/herself.

Rapscallion

Bard always made the most sense to me. Candlekeep is full of books, old Winthrop tells you stories all through your childhood, everyone knows and likes you. You have a natural charisma (even if your stats don't reflect it) - remember that story about Khelban Blackstaff visiting when you were a child? Hilarious.

Also, you were raised not just by Gorion, but you were tutored by loads of people in Candlekeep from lots of different backgrounds/professions.

The_New_Romance

Pure Cleric or Cleric of Oghma might be okay, but the Cleric kits provided don't make sense. Who in Candlekeep made you a priest of a god that neither has a temple nor other priests of its faith there? I'd rather accept Paladin, since that basically means you're the epitome of goodness, which is possible even if you lived your whole life in the Keep. You might not be an "ordained" paladin of a church, but BG doesn't go into that kind of detail with paladins.

I believe Bard is high up in the list, as is Mage, Sorcerer and Fighter, and combinations thereof. Ranger, Druid and Barbarian are too far off in my opinion, and Thief... it just doesn't fit. It might be possible, but not as fitting as the mentioned classes.

Varil

I think a Sorcerer makes a lot of sense. The PC is supposed to have a ton of magical power, and given that the game design is for them to end up with at least 5 followers, they are apparently supposed to be charismatic enough to lead.

Alternatively, a cleric with no particular god makes sense too, in a way. I can see an argument for monk or bard. Anything dual-classed into mage or cleric makes some sense. A paladin(or blackguard) seems appropriate.

jolly_bb

why say a Thief is not making a lot of sense? Actually being taken by Gorion in childhood, where Charname was maybe not brought up in most luxurious of conditions, and then being brought up in Candlekeep with lots of dark corners to hide in, lots of guards and other people to make fun of sneaking up on them from behind and poking with a stick...

IMHO thief makes a lot of sense (perhapse not truly evil one though)

I agree though that bard makes obvious and perfect sense. As for Cleric, also OK. Mage - the same. Ranger, Paladin, Druid not so much. Fighter i dunno.

Regarding dual/multiclasses - as i get older i'm more and more against those being allowed at all ^_^

Pluc082

And you have to be human i guess. Imoen is a human, same for sarevok.

Philhelm

Pluc082 said:

And you have to be human i guess. Imoen is a human, same for sarevok.

Not necessarily; they are only half-siblings sharing a common father.

Philhelm

My vote would go for pure fighter. I guess I just don't see him having any outstanding skills, having been kept sheltered by his ward.

agris

I like the idea of a Fighter dualed to a Mage early BG2. At the start of the story, you're an orphan brought up monastically, and it makes sense you could gravitate towards aggression given your parentage. By the start of BG2, CHARNAME recognizes the power of magic, and takes a 'beat him at his own game' approach with irenicus.

[Deleted User]

I don't have too much trouble justifying Ranger or Druid. Candlekeep is portrayed as being fairly isolated, with a good amount of wilderness separating it from towns like Nashkel and Beregost. Unless you assume that Charname was never allowed outside of the walls, you can assume that there was an opportunity to train with the rangers and druids that inhabit the region.

I have a harder time making sense of some of the evil options. "Uh, Charname, one of the monks was cleaning and found what appears to be a holy symbol of Talos. Do you want to explain this?"

"Uhh, that's not a holy symbol, I just think lightning is cool. Hey, you can cast Lightning Bolt, right? You wanna show me?"

igotsmeakabob11

Kaigen said:

I don't have too much trouble justifying Ranger or Druid. Candlekeep is portrayed as being fairly isolated, with a good amount of wilderness separating it from towns like Nashkel and Beregost. Unless you assume that Charname was never allowed outside of the walls, you can assume that there was an opportunity to train with the rangers and druids that inhabit the region.

I have a harder time making sense of some of the evil options. "Uh, Charname, one of the monks was cleaning and found what appears to be a holy symbol of Talos. Do you want to explain this?"

"Uhh, that's not a holy symbol, I just think lightning is cool. Hey, you can cast Lightning Bolt, right? You wanna show me?"

To my knowledge, your character never ventured beyond the walls of Candlekeep.

szb

Kaigen said:

Unless you assume that Charname was never allowed outside of the walls, you can assume that there was an opportunity to train with the rangers and druids that inhabit the region.

Actually if you start a ranger or druid and check your bibliography it states that you never stepped outside the walls.

Rilbur

I think some of the people here are making too much trouble over where the character was born, with regards to which god he can worship.

From what I understand, the Realms as a whole believe in the existence of gods (duh), and are (mostly) accepting of various gods. Sure, certain regions might lean one way or the other, but it doesn't make sense to antagonize another god by trying to kill off his worshipers.

You might not have any priests of Talos around to teach you as a child, but you're still in freakin' Candlekeep; if you want to find a book to talk about him, you're NOT going to have a hard time. And no on is going to give you a hard time about your search for knowledge. Not with Ohgma being the 'local' God.

[Deleted User]

szb said:

Kaigen said:

Unless you assume that Charname was never allowed outside of the walls, you can assume that there was an opportunity to train with the rangers and druids that inhabit the region.

Actually if you start a ranger or druid and check your bibliography it states that you never stepped outside the walls.

Well, yeah, but if you start an Elf it implies that Gorion raised you from a baby, which would mean you spent a solid 60 years in Candlekeep and makes no sense given the timeline in the game. I give the ingame biography about as much credence as the books.

@Rilbur You think Gorion's going to be completely unconcerned when his ward, the spawn of the evil god Bhaal, starts reading up on evil gods and worshipping them?

I suppose this comes down to how much you really need to be a level 1 anything. If you can be a level 1 Ranger by hanging around the stables and the birds and a level 1 Priest of Talos by reading a few books, you can justify just about anything.

Tie_Fighter

I've thought about this a lot! Here is my reasoning with both alignment and class: First, all evil alignments are out. There just isn't much room for evilness in the baldur's gate saga, if it is going to make sense. It isn't impossible, of course, but it is not optimal, which is what this question is about. I also think Lawful good is impossible, and especially Paladins...you have to be a bit selfish to get through the game, that's just it. The alignment I think makes most sense is neutral good - it is just really easy to play the in general good and nice guy, who does the right thing but is also flexible with what that is. Being good makes sene with gorion as father.

So, Neutral good it is. Boring but safe.

Then there is the class. Some are impossible; Paladin (for gameplay reasons), Barbarian, Ranger, Druid (all because of growing up in candlekeep). Cleric seems weird to me, certainly not what makes most sense, and high wisdom is a game play problem. I don't think thief fits either, if nothing else because Imoen is a thief and clearly designed to back up the main character (I assume Imoen will be a part of the part, since it makes sense). Maybe with a kit like swashbuckler, but...meh. I don't like Bard. It just isn't main character material - the bard is the sidekick, who sings your songs and cheers you up. So we have three classes to choose from: fighter, wizard and sorcerer. Sorcerer is just a weird version of a wizard, and you dud grow up with all those books around you...so wizard is better than sorcerer. I don't like multiclass fighter/mage - it just doesn't seem reasonable to excel in two different things at the end of the game. I can see why they wrote the book with a fighter main character, it is just a much simpler one to handle since wizardry is extremely overpowered in D&D. But that is also a reason to not have a fighter - I don't buy that you can beat countless D&D wizards with just a sword.

One more note: Like noted, you should not have a higher wisdom than 15. A super wise character doesn't make sense during game play, since the story has you fooled a bunch of times (*ghasp* it was Sarevok in candlekeep, giving you that ring! *ghasp* Melissa, you traitor!)

So, a neutral good mage, probably with some specialization. I suppose it makes most sense with a male...but maybe that isn't too important. Sounds pretty boring though.

Rilbur

@Kaigen of course Gorion's not going to be 'unconcerned', but there's a limit to what he can do. Especially if he's halfway intelligent, because I'm sure you know what the easiest way to insure a teenager will do something is -- tell them not to!

As for the education required to be a priest... that's actually a good point, and one I'm not sure if there are any resources on. All I really know is that it involves prayer -- lots of prayer!

[Deleted User]

I suppose we can always fall back on the fact that in 2nd edition rules, first level characters aren't competent at much of anything, you don't have to assume much in the way of training or personal experience.

Silverstar

I think pretty much all the classes are well-justified with the premade biographies, though I have a bit of trouble with druid as there's not much there to indicate the PC would have gained any druidic abilities whatsoever. I guess it works out though seeing as you hardly have many abilities at level 1 anyway.

Kaigen said:

Well, yeah, but if you start an Elf it implies that Gorion raised you from a baby, which would mean you spent a solid 60 years in Candlekeep

I'm not all that great at D&D racial lore, so feel free to teach me here, but just because elves have a much longer lifespan and thus age differently, that doesn't mean they're not physically comparable to other species of the same age does it? Would a 20ish (which I think the PC is) years old Elf be child-sized compared to a Human or Half-Orc? Because if not, there's no reason Gorion cannot have raised the protagonist till at least that age.

[Deleted User]

Silverstar said:

I'm not all that great at D&D racial lore, so feel free to teach me here, but just because elves have a much longer lifespan and thus age differently, that doesn't mean they're not physically comparable to other species of the same age does it? Would a 20ish (which I think the PC is) years old Elf be child-sized compared to a Human or Half-Orc? Because if not, there's no reason Gorion cannot have raised the protagonist till at least that age.

Back when I played 2nd edition I owned the Complete Book of Elves. According to that, Elves don't hit adolescence and their growth spurt until age 65-75 (exact years depending on the subrace, that's for the standard High Elves). Before then they're children and only about four feet tall.

Silverstar

Kaigen said:

Silverstar said:

I'm not all that great at D&D racial lore, so feel free to teach me here, but just because elves have a much longer lifespan and thus age differently, that doesn't mean they're not physically comparable to other species of the same age does it? Would a 20ish (which I think the PC is) years old Elf be child-sized compared to a Human or Half-Orc? Because if not, there's no reason Gorion cannot have raised the protagonist till at least that age.

Back when I played 2nd edition I owned the Complete Book of Elves. According to that, Elves don't hit adolescence and their growth spurt until age 65-75 (exact years depending on the subrace, that's for the standard High Elves). Before then they're children and only about four feet tall.

That's interesting, thanks for the input on that. I did try to look it up via the magic of search engines, but both the wikis I looked at were rather useless on this point.

JonelethIrenicus

I would pick Sorcerer, why?
"It is thought that the blood of some powerful creature flows through their veins; perhaps they are the spawn of the gods themselves, or even dragons walking in humanoid form." -description of the sorcerer

Rhyme

I frequently played Rangers back when the game first came out. It seemed like the perfect class. I understand what other people say about the "Never ventured outside the walls", but at level 1, you're not really anything other than a blank slate. You're not an adventurer, and probably never would have been, if not for Sarevok's intrusion into your sheltered life.

So there you are... Young kid in the woods. And in BG1, you spend most of your time in the woods. Sounds pretty ranger-y to me. If you ignore the label in the prologue, and just focus on the actual events of the game, you BECOME a Ranger.

Same argument could be made about Druid. Out in the woods, communing with nature, developing mystical powers. How else would one become a druid, really?

If you focus on character development, you can pretty easily justify most classes.

Madhax

Silverstar said:

Kaigen said:

Silverstar said:

I'm not all that great at D&D racial lore, so feel free to teach me here, but just because elves have a much longer lifespan and thus age differently, that doesn't mean they're not physically comparable to other species of the same age does it? Would a 20ish (which I think the PC is) years old Elf be child-sized compared to a Human or Half-Orc? Because if not, there's no reason Gorion cannot have raised the protagonist till at least that age.

Back when I played 2nd edition I owned the Complete Book of Elves. According to that, Elves don't hit adolescence and their growth spurt until age 65-75 (exact years depending on the subrace, that's for the standard High Elves). Before then they're children and only about four feet tall.

That's interesting, thanks for the input on that. I did try to look it up via the magic of search engines, but both the wikis I looked at were rather useless on this point.

In the Drizzt books, Drizzt hits adolescence and physical maturity at around the same rate a human would, if memory serves. I'm pretty sure he's "only" about sixty by the time he gets out of the Underdark, and he spent years upon years in drow society and wandering the caverns before emerging.

Of course, that's assuming a) I'm remembering the books right, b) they accurately follow DnD lore, and c) drow elves mature at the same rate as surface elves.

Elendar

I've never really understood roleplaying in a single-player game...

[Deleted User]

Elendar said:

I've never really understood roleplaying in a single-player game...

I find it makes the game more interesting if a layer a little bit of extra story onto it in my head. Granted, I've been doing this since Starcraft, so it might just be me. YMMV

Xiviriel

I think that most classes make a lot of sense. Think of all the people in Candle Keep. There is Reevor who would train you to be a fighter, the many priests who would guide you towards cleric, Gorian and Firebead teaching you magic, Winthrops stories encouraging you to bard it up, escapades with Imoen developing your thief skills, and Im sure with the many people visiting the keep there were a few druids and rangers. Monks are about aswell!
Plus you are Bhaalspwan, you have inate power that allows you to be anything you want to be.